REVIEW
INTRODUCTION TO SPEECH ANALYSIS: principles and procedures by Eni Orlandi
Por Francilane Lima de Sousa
Federal University of Piauí
Teresina, Piauí, Brazil
José
Ribamar Lopes
Federal University of Piauí
Teresina, Piauí, Brazil
Catalog data: ORLANDI, Eni P. Análise de Discurso: princípios e procedimentos. 13rd edition. Campinas, SP: Pontes, 2020.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22409/mov.v7i15.44537
In the book Análise Discurso: princípios e procedimentos, Eni Orlandi invites us to understand some notions of discourse analysis. The book is structured in three chapters and a conclusion. From this it deals with how we relate to language as social subjects that we are. This work was born from the insistence of students and editors to produce an introduction to discourse analysis.
In the first chapter entitled: Discurso, Orlandi argues that Discourse Analysis is the result of different ways of giving language meaning. It deals with the speech of man in his movement and in his journey, understanding the meaning of the language. Relating language to its exteriority. It is stated that the discourse analyst aims to restore the sense of what is mentioned in the time and space of man's practices, by decentralizing the notion of subject revitalizing the autonomy of the linguistic object. It reflects on the way language is materialized in ideology and how it manifests itself in language. Working the relationship between language, speech and ideology. It is stated that Discourse Analysis does not seek to cross the text to find the meaning, it seeks to ask how text means, since the text is a totality with its particular quality and its specific nature.
One more concept that the author addresses is that the discourse analysis accounts for the conditions of language production by analyzing the relationship established by the language with the subjects that the speech and the conditions in which the speech takes place. For discourse analysis, language is not transparent. Constituting itself in three disciplinary domains: Linguistics, Marxism and Psychoanalysis, without being absorbed by them. For Discourse Analysis , language has its own order, history has its real affected by the symbolic and the decentralized subject is affected by the real of the language and the real of history, having no control over how they affect it.
Orlandi deepens the notion of discourse by proposing that Discourse Analysis in confluence with these three knowledge concentration areas constitutes a new object that will affect them as a whole, this new object would be discourse. The discourse is not a message made where the sender transmits the information to the receiver, the discourse translates to the effect of meanings between speakers. It should also not be to confuse discourse with speech. The discourse has its regularity and functioning that it is possible to learn. Carrying the social people and the history, system and realization, the subjective and objective, the process to the product. Thus, language is a condition for the possibility of discourse, but the boundary between language and discourse is systematically questioned in each discursive practice.
In the second chapter: Sujeito, história e linguagem, the author ponderates more on the theoretical concepts of Discourse Analysis and brings that in the discursive perspective the question about language and its senses. It only makes sense because it is inscribed in the story. Discourse Analysis brings together three regions of knowledge in their contradictory attributions: a) the theory of syntax and enunciation; b) the theory of ideology and c) the theory of discourse, which is the historical determination of the processes of signification, all crossed by a theory of the subject of a psychoanalytic nature.
Discourse Analysis aims to understand how symbolic objects produce meaning, thus analyzing the very gestures of interpretation that it considers as acts in the symbolic domain, as they intervene in reality of meaning as part of the processes of signification. Hence it is proposed to distinguish intelligibility, interpretation and understanding. Where intelligibility refers to the meaning of language, the interpretation of the meaning thought in the context and understanding is knowing how the symbolic object produces meanings.
In summary, Discourse Analysis aims to understand how a symbolic object for the senses for and by subjects organized in gestures of interpretation that relate subject and sense. Each analysis is different, as it mobilizes different concepts and in turn has different analyzes in the discrimination of materials. Hence the need to distinguish theoretical device from the interpretation of analytical device constructed by the analyst, although one involves the other. “Having done the analysis, and having understood the process of seeing the results, they will be available for the analyst to interpret according to the different theoretical instruments of the disciplinary fields in which he enrolls and from which he started” (p.26).
Another aspect explored is that the discourses are not just messages to be decoded, they are effects of meanings that are produced in certain conditions presented in the way it is said in which the discourse analyst will find clues to understand the senses and has to do with what it is said also with places as well as with what has not been said. The production conditions include the subject and the situation: the immediate context includes the socio-historical, ideological context. Memory is an interdiscourse, what we call discursive memory: the discursive knowledge that makes it possible to say everything that comes back in the form of the pre-built, the already said that is at the base of the saying, supporting each word taking. The interdiscourse provides statements that affect the way the subject means in a given discursive situation.
In this way, the subject has no control over the way in which the senses are constituted in him. From this it can be deduced that there is a relationship between what has already been said and what is being said is that which exists between interdiscourse and intradiscourse or, among other words, between the constitution of meaning and its formulation. The interdiscourse would be vertical and would have all the sayings already said and the intradiscourse would be horizontal and would be the axis of the formulation, what we are saying. All saying, in reality, is at the confluence of two axes: that of memory (constitution) and that of today (formulation). It is necessary to distinguish two forms of forgetfulness in the discourse: forgetting initiation where it is believed that it can only be said with those words and ideological forgetfulness results from the way we are affected by ideology.
When thinking discursively, language makes it difficult to draw boundaries between the same and the different. From then on, two paraphrastic and polysemic processes are considered, where the paraphrase would be the return to the same spaces, and polysemy, displacement and rupture of signification processes. The conditions of production are related to meanings, because there is no discourse that does not relate to others, a discourse that counts for others that support them. As for future sayings. The place of speech totally changes the perspective of the discourse and the process of argumentation. The conditions of production imply what is material, what is institutional and what is imaginary.
In this way Orlandi puts the notion that meaning does not exist in itself, but is determined by the ideological positions put at stake in the sociological and historical process in which words are produced. Words change their meaning according to the positions of those who employ them. Discursive formation is defined as what a given ideological formation determines that can and should be said: the discourse is constituted in senses because of what the subject is inscribed in a discursive formation and not another one to have a meaning and not another the words talk to others; it is by reference to the discursive formation that we can understand the discursive functioning of the meanings of the same words that can mean differently because different discursive information is written.
Thus, there is no discourse without subject and subject without ideology. Ideology and the unconscious are materially linked by language. Orlandi also characterizes the free subject and the submissive subject. He can say everything as long as he subjects himself to a language to do so is what we call the basis for subjection. The condition of language to incompleteness, neither subject nor senses are complete. They are in the middle of the relationship, the lack, the movement. The subjects are at the same time the language and the history, to the stabilized and to the realized, the men and senses make their journeys, keep the language, stop by the margins, surpass limits of overflow, reflect. Hence, three types of repetition are proposed: empirical repetition, formal repetition, and historical repetition.
In the third chapter Dispositivo de Análise, Orlandi deals with the notion of interpretation devices between what is said and what is not said and its relationship with the subject through the senses and his words. A word can mean different things depending on who says it and how it is said. The constitution of the corpus is an important one. His delimitation does not follow empirical criteria, but theoretical. Distinguishing experimental and archive corpus. The construction of the corpus of analysis is linked to what is part of the corpus and its discursive constitution in line with the methods and procedures is not intended to demonstrate, but to show how discourse works producing effects of meaning.
Another thing is that the analysis begin with the establishment of the corpus in relation to the material and the question posed by the organism. As for textuality, discursiveness the text can be oral or written because the text is text because it means. In this way, discourse is an effect of meaning between speakers that works as a way of ensuring the permanence of a certain representation. The speaker of a certain discourse is one who represents himself as the self and establishes the speech according to its coherence. Just as what is said erases other words, not saying makes the implicit the presupposition. It can be said that the speech revolves around three typologies: authoritarian speech, controversial speech and playful speech.
Finally, in the Conclusion, the author deals with discourse and ideology in which she reveals that meaning is history and that the subject is signified in it. Discourse analysis would understand ideology and its intervention in discourse. This, impregnated in language would give meaning to the subject's discourse.
This work is a very comfortable one and it presents initial and clarifying concepts in the demand for Discourse Analysis in which several concepts such as: discourse, subject, conditions of production and meanings could be clarified. Although the author shows in her preface that she decided to do something other than that requested by her students and editors, it is possible to list Análise Discurso: princípios e procedimentos as an excellent work to start discussions in Discourse Analysis, for having a clear language and to dismount several points that compose the Discourse Analysis leading to points of reflection on their basic areas of knowledge, however making it clear that the Discourse Analysis does not submit to them having its own analytical principles before the language and its subjects.
Reference
ORLANDI, Eni P. Análise de Discurso: princípios e procedimentos. 13rd edition Campinas, SP: Pontes, 2020.
.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
FRANCILANE LIMA DE SOUSA holds a master’s degree Student in Literature at Federal University of Piauí, Associate degree in Higher Education Management and Teaching (FID - Faculdade Internacional do Delta), holds degrees in Education and Brazilian Sign Language land Deaf Literature from Universidade Federal do Piauí.
E-mail: lanelima2022@gmail.com.
JOSÉ RIBAMAR LOPES BATISTA JUNIOR holds a PhD and master’s degree in Linguistics from the University of Brasília (UnB). He is a member of the Grupo de Estudos Linguísticos e Literários do Nordeste (GELNE) and of the Núcleo de Estudos e Pesquisas em Análise de Discurso (NEPAD/UFPI). Professor and Hight School teacher at the Federal University of Piauí (UFPI), founder and coordinator of the Laboratório Experimental de Ensino e Pesquisa em Leitura e Produção Textual (LPT/CNPq) of the Colégio Técnico de Floriano (CTF/UFPI). He is dedicated to studies in the areas of New Literacy Studies and Critical Discourse Analysis.
E-mail: ribas@ufpi.edu.br
Received: 11.08.2020